Analysis of Crossing Behavior and Violations of Electric Bikers at Signalized Intersections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper focuses on investigating electric bikers’ (e-bikers) crossing behavior and violations based on survey data of 3,126 e-bikers collected at signalized intersections in Nantong, China. We first explore e-bikers’ characteristics of late crossing, incomplete crossing, and violating crossing behaviors by frequency analysis and duration distribution, and examine a few influential factors for e-bikers’ red-light running (RLR) behavior, including site type, crossing length and traffic signal countdown timers (TSCTs). E-bikers’ RLR behavior is further divided into three categories, namely GR near-violations, RR violations, and RG violations. Second, we use a binary logistic regression model to identify the relationship between e-bikers’ RLR behavior and potential influential factors, including demographic attributes, movement information, and infrastructure conditions. We not only make regression analysis for respective violation type, but also carry out an integrated regression of a census of all three types of violations. Some insightful findings are revealed: (i) the green signal time and site type are the most significant factors to GR near-violations, but with little impact on the other two violation types; (ii) the waiting time, waiting position, passing cars and crossing length exert considerable impact on RR violations; (iii) for RG violations, TSCTs, leading violators and gender are the most significant factors; (iv) it is also unveiled that site type, green signal time and TSCTs have negligible impact on the whole violations regardless of the violation types. Thus, it is more meaningful to investigate the impacts of these variables on e-bikers’ RLR behavior according to different violation types; otherwise, the potential relationship between some crucial factors and e-bikers’ RLR behavior might be ignored. These findings would help to improve intersection crossing safety for traffic management.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".